'When has it ever become legal to shoot someone because they’re pulling off in your car?'

You are the only one that brought that up.

Nobody here said anything about shoosting anyone for stealing or running away with a rusty old toaster oven or an obsolete heavy television.

 

You value a gun over a car?

 

The death penalty in that people in this thread have advocated killing someone for stealing their possessions. Here's one example from this thread. There are more.

 

gun is a deadly weapon.

car is a means for transportation

 

Depends. Let us hypothetically examine this: If he breaks into my house and has grabbed my toaster, but at the first moment he realizes I'm there and he just runs for the doorway, I'm apt to let him go. If he has used deadly force as part of threatening me and my home, and we have exchanged gunfire but he has escaped from my home and is running away with my toaster, then I would be tempted to put a bullet into him anyway if I can safely take the shot. Why? Because he has proven he has no regard for human life, and if he escapes he would be a clear and present danger to innocent people; so my taking the shot is a protective act against his brutalization of potential subsequent victims.

 

Hardly. Ordinary citizens are not the state.

 

I agree. Any kind of restricted weapon can be had by those who want them bad enough.

 

i feel u should have the right to use non-deadly force to prevent a burglary of your home.

but only deadly force to protect human life.

 

How about in a crisis situation; where that loaf of bread might make the difference between a man being able to feed his children for another couple of weeks, and his children starving? Under those circumstances, that man stealing a loaf of bread is endangering the other man's family. If shooting the thief is the only way to protect his children, then is it immoral?

 

Every time an armed citizens kills a dangerous felon in the act the community as a whole benefits - bigly.

Aiming to kill probably reflects a bit too much enthusiasm. 2 - 3 rounds to the torso should be enough. A dead felon would just be a dividend for society.
But the courts and juries should always give the benefit of the doubt to the armed citizen in any confrontation with a dangerous felon.

 

Xen just asked the question. But an ordinary citizen cannot impose the death penalty.
The act of shooting a fleeing felon to stop a theft is not punishment or an imposed penalty. Armed citizens are crime stoppers not penalizers.
Police, courts, and juries may want to consider whether the armed citizen had enough cause to consider the fleeing felon a dangerous public enemy.

 

Google DIY weapons and find detailed plans for making every kind of powerful military weapon from shotguns and submachine guns to mortars and rocket launchers. When a government disarms its people criminals will arm themselves weapons that give them a decisive advantage over the police.

 

No, he wasn't JUST asking the question. Spin it any way you like. But if you're going to be disingenuous you can do it with someone who's willing to play your semantic games. Goodbye

 

I just read your post. There was a question mark at the end of the Xen quote you chose to paste up. I assume you missed it.

 

Then the value of a human life is set quite low with regard to yourself. Under established united states law, a firearm is nothing more than the receiver which holds everything together. A stripped receiver without any other components included, can actually be had for less than one hundred dollars.

 

Only if the motor vehicle is actually utilized for the purpose of transportation, and not any other purpose.

 

It is an analogy for the purpose of discussing the appropriate responses to incidents that are statistically rare in their nature, and do not reflect what is considered the norm of behavior in the united states. The statement made by yourself was that murders stemming from property-based crimes are statistically rare, as a justification for why deadly force is not warranted against the perpetrator. And yet other statistically rare events are indeed used as justification for government actions.

 

Never made a blanket statement saying deadly force is not justified against a perpetrator. Try reading what I ACTUALLY post and not what you THINK I post.

 

Oh for.........

And what if the moon were made of blue cheese

 

While your fantasized version of gun owners is silly the point most gun owners know is that a lawyer comes with every bullet.

 

Then it is likely still quite fresh, as it is stored in an oxygen-free environment where bacteria cannot flourish.

 

That's your biggest problem, Bird: you self-righteously ignore facts inconvenient to your agenda.

Civilization is never more than one unanticipated event from total breakdown. We have blinded ourselves to just how fragile infrastructure is, or how easily it could be undone.

In a theoretical discussion of the morality of using deadly force to protect inanimate objects, the acknowledgement that there are circumstances where someone stealing from you could be a life-or-death situation become necessary.

We have seen looters ravaging neighborhoods shattered by natural disasters or even civil unrest. Food shortages are not so far-fetched under such circumstances... shortages where the theft of food becomes far more fundamentally intrusive an act that we might think about when we can run to the nearest convenience store and pick up a loaf of bread for a couple of dollars.

 

So you want to give the advantage to criminals?

 

I think that the following situation is an example of when shooting is justified:

"Texas mom shoots man who stole SUV with kids inside"
https://wgno.com/2018/07/05/texas-mom-shoots-man-in-head-after-he-attempts-to-steal-suv-with-kids-inside/

EXCERPT "A Texas mother shot a suspected carjacker in the head after he tried to steal her SUV with her two children in the backseat.

Michelle Booker-Hicks said she was paying for gas at a Shell gas station near Interstate 35 around 10 p.m. Wednesday when the suspect climbed inside her SUV and attempted to drive away with her two sons in the backseat, according to KTVT.

“I proceeded to jump in my backseat and told the gentleman to stop… to get out the car. He would not get out of the car. He turned around and looked at me. I reached over the arm rest to get to my glove compartment and that’s when I fired at him,” she told KDFW.

Booker-Hicks shot the man in the face causing him to crash the SUV through a fence. He was arrested at the scene and will likely face kidnapping and carjacking charges.

The children were not injured."CONTINUED

 

Texas does.

God Bless Texas.